Islam is the most misunderstood religion in contemporary society

[Epic Beard Man]

But Bible supports slavery. They were not misrepresenting anything. Quran also allows one to have slaves.

Ok.

 

[sayak83]

Ok.

So you agree?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So you agree?

No. I'm just saying Ok to acknowledge your opinion.

 

[Milton Platt]

As mentioned before, the Qur'an was revealed at particular times and events during the formation of the Muslim community and their conflict with the Quraysh tribe.

Doesn't matter....the violent statements are there

 

[Muffled]

I believe Christians tend to misunderstand it because people known as Muslims attacked Christianity so it became convenient to view Islam as an enemy and demonize it.

However I believe Hinduism is less understood than Islam and may be there are reasons for that. 1. because it isn't all over the world for everyone to get to know 2. because it is so complex 3. Adherents don't share their religion much.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can scholars manipulate text for their own agenda? Yes. This is something that is cross-religions.

Aye, there's much misunderstanding in other religions too.
Which have it the worst? I dunno.
I don't know how that would even be measured.

The Qur'an is not vague although it has a complex formation of messages but given that scholars have demonstrated that the revealed text relate to various periods in time it makes sense:

From what I observe in discussions by Muslims, other kinds of Muslims, & non-Muslims,
there is great ambiguity in the Koran. Whether this is called "complexity" or not...that's
just a label. If they cannot agree, then this indicates misunderstanding.

"Each chapter of the Qur'an is a well structured unit. It is only lack of consideration and analysis on our part that they seem disjointed and incoherent... Each chapter imparts a specific message as its central theme. The completion of this theme marks the end of the chapter. If there were no such specific conclusion intended to be dealt with in each chapter there would be no need to divide the Qur'an in chapters. Rather the whole Qur'an would be a single chapter... We see that a set of verses has been placed together and named 'sura' the way a city is built with a wall erected round it. A single wall must contain a single city in it. What is the use of a wall encompassing different cities?"

-Mahmoud, T. (2008). Exordium to coherence in the Qur'an an English translation of Fatihah Nizam al-Qur'an

The conflict that resides in the beliefs as you say is ont necessarily theological, but the disagreements among the Muslims are the result of socio-political structures that over time influence certain powers the interpret doctrine differently. This is the fate of all major religions. Buddhism is no exception. Considering that Buddhism's doctrine had nothing to do with the Buddha being a deity, the subsequent admission of the deification of the Buddha, is the result of the interpretations of Buddhist scholars.

If the Koran were clear, these differences should not exist.
But they can't even agree upon the legitimacy of the Hadiths,
which further complicate matters.

 

[Muffled]

While I think Karen Armstrong often has her heart in the right place, she often seems to indulge in loosely supported, murky or muddled views of religion. At least that's my take on her.

I believe people have a tendency to see what they wish to see and Karen is no exception. While the Qu'ran does have the elements she speaks of I don't believe those elements reflect the general nature of the book. I believe th book reflects a desire by God to bring Arabs up to date about belief in Him without burdening the Arabs with what God was doing specifically with Jews.

 

[Muffled]

Aye, there's much misunderstanding in other religions too.
Which have it the worst? I dunno.
I don't know how that would even be measured.

From what I observe in discussions by Muslims, other kinds of Muslims, & non-Muslims,
there is great ambiguity in the Koran. Whether this is called "complexity" or not...that's
just a label. If they cannot agree, then this indicates misunderstanding.

If the Koran were clear, these differences should not exist.
But they can't even agree upon the legitimacy of the Hadiths,
which further complicate matters.

I believe there is no validity to the Hadiths. To me it would seem like a Christian accepting the Gnostic writings as legitimate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe there is no validity to the Hadiths. To me it would seem like a Christian accepting the Gnostic writings as legitimate.

I take no position on what should be included in a religion's scripture.
But I notice that believers widely disagree about it. So even though
I lack any expertise, I can discern much from this behavior.

 

[Muffled]

It's hard to view a religion without considering its historical activities since its founding. This applies to any religion and any ideology. We shouldn't ignore the effect a belief system has had on the world.

I believe those less than desirable things associated with religions are not the result of the religions but of the sinful nature of man.

 

[Augustus]

The Qur'an is not vague although it has a complex formation of messages but given that scholars have demonstrated that the revealed text relate to various periods in time it makes sense

Many early exegetes clearly had no idea of how to interpret certain passages. Tabari, for example, often notes 5-10 contradictory interpretations of passages that sometimes appear to me little more than guesswork. The text also contains many hapaxes which have also caused problems for those trying to interpret the text.

When interpreting the Quran through the sirah/hadith, the problem is that many scholars believe that the these, at least in part, evolved to explain the Quran.

Consensus on how to interpret verses took a long time to develop, concurrent with the fixing of the prophetic biography. Although for the first few centuries, both of these were far from universally agreed on.

Summed up well by this quote:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

 

[sayak83]

No. I'm just saying Ok to acknowledge your opinion.

In your view

Does Quran allow or disallow the holding of other humans as slaves?

Please let me know if my interpretation is a misunderstanding.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Doesn't matter....the violent statements are there

Sure as the Bible but it helps to understand the history.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Aye, there's much misunderstanding in other religions too.
Which have it the worst? I dunno.
I don't know how that would even be measured.

From what I observe in discussions by Muslims, other kinds of Muslims, & non-Muslims,
there is great ambiguity in the Koran. Whether this is called "complexity" or not...that's
just a label. If they cannot agree, then this indicates misunderstanding.

If the Koran were clear, these differences should not exist.
But they can't even agree upon the legitimacy of the Hadiths,
which further complicate matters.

Ok

 

[tayla]

I believe those less than desirable things associated with religions are not the result of the religions but of the sinful nature of man.

Fair enough.

 

[Al Ibn Al Amra]

Please have a look :

 

[Spiderman]

Muhammad was an extremist, a terrorist, and a military dictator.

Muslims cut off heads, because Mohammed cut off heads.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe there is no validity to the Hadiths. To me it would seem like a Christian accepting the Gnostic writings as legitimate.

Really? From what I have learned, that would not be a very proper comparison at all.

Although I have no doubt that many Muslims will disagree with me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe those less than desirable things associated with religions are not the result of the religions but of the sinful nature of man.

Common opinion. Still, it does not even attempt to address unavoidable questions, such as "what should be considered a valid religion?"

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure as the Bible but it helps to understand the history.

The Bible is not presented as written by God, nor is it subject to quite as fanatical worship as the Qur'an.

Subtle distinction, but still a powerful and very consequential one.